650-page finale to the author's three-volume set (first book is
discussed here; second book is
discussed here. She expands and develops the themes from the first two books.
Author is "emerita distinguished professor of economics and of history, and professor of English and of communications" at University of Illinois at Chicago. Her breadth of knowledge and experience shows throughout. I've never taken an econ course and remain marvelously illiterate on the topic - but coming into the subject in an unscientific way late in life, I do have a strong impression that econ really is about "living" in a very broad sense . . . about considering all the variables that affect or constitute human behavior . . . deep knowledge of history and literature, as McCloskey clearly brings to bear, adds invaluable depth to the discussion.
Her basic idea - a detailed exposition about how ideas matter - about how liberating regular folk to "have a go" (her phrase) - led to the unbelievable enrichment of the last 200 years, to the great betterment of so many. Human potential, unleashed and respected, is beyond marvelous.
I like how she goes after conservative forces on the left and on the right. I think I'm getting a better handle on this. Aristocrats or plutocrats or military leaders with plenty of financial resources and/or power don't benefit from disruption or a lifting-up of regular folk. University professors, bureaucrats, priests, columnists and politicians sit on their perches - not themselves needing to be productive (or, heaven forbid, to generate a profit) - they don't benefit from disruption or a lifting up of regular folk. Constant sneering from these sources at those engaged in commercial activities - coming from those ultimately supported by it! Unions, regulations, minimum wage, tariffs, crony capitalists, etc. - regularly employed to prevent regular folk from having a go. Especially as these organizations mature and become focused, first and foremost, on their own turf.
Useful discussion about why capitalism (a term she considers misleading - she prefers "trade-tested betterment" - in significant part because "capital" is so small a factor in what she calls the Great Enrichment) - anyway, capitalism so obviously is a success overall, and so obviously a success in improving the lives of the regular/poor folk - yet it draws endless opprobrium. Gives lots of useful history on this. Including reviewing literature/arts, which turned anti-bourgeois starting 1848.
She uses the idea of "waiting for the third act" as a helpful way of thinking about how entrepreneurs - after enriching (maybe) themselves - end up bestowing far greater riches on regular/poor folk. If I pay $600 for an iPhone - Steve Jobs (or Apple stockholders) capture how much - let's assume $100 in profit - but I capture
far more value from the device than I paid. A Yale study, for what it's worth,
estimates that entrepreneurs capture just 2.2% - whatever the number, it's a great bargain for all of us!
But count on academics, politicians, media types to keep focusing only on (sneering at) the "first act" - without considering the longer term - how else to keep the ignorant whipped up?
She continues her useful elaboration on the positive way that virtues fit into the commercial life.
Also debunks the "Eden" myth - such a favorite of the conservative right (but also conservatives on the left, now nostalgic for the 1950s economy, of all things!!) - the myth being the utterly false belief in how great everything was back in the old days - one ex. being the myth of the contented villagers living in close harmony with each other and nature - no reader of history slightly believes this. But politicians endlessly cite variations on this theme, and human nature seems to respond to the myth.
Also useful: her discussion about today's #1 hobby horse - "inequality". Since no one can continue to seriously argue that trade-tested betterment, or capitalism, dramatically aids the poor/regular folks - and dramatically better than any other system including charity or socialism - the sneering and complaining shifts to "inequality". (See discussion above about low capture rate by entrepreneurs.) But envy works so very poorly - except to attract votes from the ignorant.
She emphasizes that things are quite good in many countries as a result of the bourgeois deal - but this can quickly be reversed. Policies and governments matter, a great deal. Countries like the U.S. (and others - Canada, Scandinavia, etc.) are wealthy enough and have generated enough momentum to continue at a comfortable level - if slow-growth - despite increasing stupidity in the political arena (see e.g. politicians braying for protectionism, free college, minimum wage etc. in current presidential campaign). For so many other/emerging countries - adopting the same stupidities - they will never get off the dime.
Per McCloskey - above all else, ideas - and rhetoric about ideas - matter.
I think the three volumes are incredibly valuable, and would be worth anyone's time. (And it does take some time.)
